Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles

4 Citing briefs

  1. CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION v. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (PEOPLE)

    Appellants, Cleveland National Forest Foundation and Sierra Club, Answer to Petition for Review

    Filed January 26, 2015

    AR:296:19682; 320:2773 1-32. Rather than adopting these measures or demonstrating that they were infeasible, as CEQA requires (L.A. Unified, 58 Cal.App.4th at 1029-30), SANDAGraised a host of unconvincing excusesfor rejecting them. For example, SANDAGclaimsthat the measures suggested by Petitioners mightnot be effective.

  2. CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION v. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (PEOPLE)

    Appellants, Cleveland National Forest Foundation and Sierra Club, Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

    Filed November 12, 2015

    (See, e.g., Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 431 {An EIR evaluating a planned land use project must assumethat all phasesofthe project will eventually be built and will need water, and mustanalyze, to the extent reasonably possible, the impacts of providing water to the entire proposed project.”]; Napa Citizensfor Honest Government v. Napa County Board ofSupervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 370 [EIR must analyze number, type, and general location of future housing units, even though precise details of future housing were not yet known]; Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1370 [agency must investigate and disclose impacts from toxic air contaminants, despite lack of universally accepted method for doing so]; Los Angeles Unified School District v. City ofLos Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1028 [EIR must include analysis of cumulative traffic noise on schools from future buildoutofplan area].) Preparing an EIR “necessarily involves some degree of forecasting.”

  3. SAN DIEGO, CITY OF v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

    Appellants, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System and San Diego Association of Governments, Answer Brief on the Merits

    Filed September 18, 2012

    “Feasible” means “capable ofbeing accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” (§ 21061.1, emphasis added; Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1029.) Thus, if the lead agency has reason to believe that implementation of a proposed mitigation measure may be precluded in practice by funding shortages or uncertainties, technical complexities, or other factors, it cannot reasonably stopits evaluation of potential mitigation measures there and simply hope for the best.

  4. SAN DIEGO, CITY OF v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

    Appellants, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System and San Diego Association of Governments, Answer to Petition for Review

    Filed February 15, 2012

    The CEQA Guidelines specifically provide, for example, that where more than one mitigation measureis potentially available, “each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified.” (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); see also Los Angeles Unified School Dist.v. City ofLos Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1029 [EIR must consider and respondto suggestionsfor significant additional feasible mitigation measures].) The substantive duty to mitigate cannotbe satisfied by adopting mitigation measures of uncertain feasibility where other more viable measures exist.